Recommended Posts

In general, I think that guns are bad. I don't think that anyone in the world should own a gun. However, I understand that it isn't that simple. If the government/the police have guns, then the people should also be entitled to have guns. It has to be equal. In my ideal world, neither the government/police or the people would have guns. So I guess I'm somewhere in between the pro-gun control and anti-gun control. Because although I'm against guns in the first place, I think it's highly impractical to prevent people from having them. Gun control works in places such as the UK or Australia, and I believe that this is due to both places being islands with tighter borders than other places. Look at France and all the trouble they've had. They have guns banned, yet they have experienced lots and lots of gun violence including gun violence via terror attacks. I believe this is due to them being surrounded by other countries rather than being an island, and this makes it far harder for them to prevent guns coming into their country. I think for this same reason, gun control would never work out well in the US, because there are too many ways to get guns into the country.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Most gun related crimes happen in gun-free zones. Schools, churches, random businesses that are anti-gun, etc. I'm not saying I want everyone and their mother having a gun, but gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals can always gain access to a gun, so why not level the playing field?

Although I think background checks should be more rigorous, and maybe even people should limited to gun purchases per year (I think this is a fair compromise between pro and anti-gun folks), the amount of guns already in the US means that they'll never be taken away completely. The ONLY way to get all of the guns out of the US would be to violate constitutional rights and search every household without warrant while under Marshal Law...and that would cause an uprising in and of itself. So like...guns are here to stay, I'd rather be able to defend myself if needed.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Most gun related crimes happen in gun-free zones. Schools, churches, random businesses that are anti-gun, etc. I'm not saying I want everyone and their mother having a gun, but gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals can always gain access to a gun, so why not level the playing field?

Although I think background checks should be more rigorous, and maybe even people should limited to gun purchases per year (I think this is a fair compromise between pro and anti-gun folks), the amount of guns already in the US means that they'll never be taken away completely. The ONLY way to get all of the guns out of the US would be to violate constitutional rights and search every household without warrant while under Marshal Law...and that would cause an uprising in and of itself. So like...guns are here to stay, I'd rather be able to defend myself if needed.

I agree, however I don't think it's as simple as "Criminals can always gain access to a gun". In the US? Definitely. But as I mentioned in my original post, that sort of thing is very rare in the likes of the UK or Australia, and I think it just comes down to those places being islands and the fact that it's much harder to smuggle weapons over their borders. But yeah, I agree with everything you said.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I agree, however I don't think it's as simple as "Criminals can always gain access to a gun". In the US? Definitely. But as I mentioned in my original post, that sort of thing is very rare in the likes of the UK or Australia, and I think it just comes down to those places being islands and the fact that it's much harder to smuggle weapons over their borders. But yeah, I agree with everything you said.

I'll admit I was talking in terms of US alone. It's the only first-hand experience/knowledge I really have on the subject.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's different for each country. I think gun control is impossible in the US because a ridiculous amount of people own a gun and there isn't a database per se to find those who have one and take it away from them. Gun control would not work in the US because the guns are out there. If you get robbed chances are the person will have a gun so it makes sense that people can buy guns for self-defence.

In the UK however gun control works wonders. People who own a gun, own it for the right reasons. Sport and hunting. You also have to keep it in a locked cabinet. You can't buy a gun for purposes of self-defence because that's what the police is for.

I do beilive though that home owners should be allowed to own a taser just in case anyone breaks in with a knife.

Also the fact that we have specialist units within the police that handle fire arms leave no room for error. If the police gets called in a scene where someone has a gun(rare) and they just dare to point that towards them or towards a member of the public, they'll get three bullets through their heart. Shoot to kill. Also when there is a firearm involved in a ongoing crime there are loads of coppers with SMGs and assault riffles everywhere who are highly experienced. They're everywhere even on roof tops. So our police force is well equipped to deal with firearm violence which means if someone doesn't have gun, they can just deal with it with a teaser or a baton if need be. Ordinary coppers don't need guns because gun violence is low in the UK and also it's better to have specialist trained units who know what they are doing at all times.

The beauty with the UK is that you are not allowed to own a pistol or any riffle remotely automatic because if it's automatic or easy to conceal then it's not for sport or hunting.

I'm looking in the future to maybe buy a bolt action riffle for hunting and sport. I find it extremely reasonable that I can't buy an M16 or an MP4 because those weapons are intended for war, not hunting or sport. A bolt action riffle or a shotgun is all you need when it comes to sport or hunting. An automatic weapon is not. Same goes for army piercing rounds.

Why in the hell would a need 50 cal anti-personnel sniper riffle with army piercing rounds unless I'm looking to shoot through a tank.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why in the hell would a need 50 cal anti-personnel sniper riffle with army piercing rounds unless I'm looking to shoot through a tank.

I guess it depends on how you define "sport". For some, "sport" is using high caliber rifles to disintegrate a target from over 7000 feet away. Armor piercing rounds are also not available legally to the general public. And also, anything 50 cal is not "anti-personnel"...it's made to pulverize armor. I'm not saying this to criticize your knowledge, I'm saying this because using words like "assault" rifle or "armor piercing" adds a negative connotation to a weapon. If I assault you that's on me, not the gun.

I guess it depends on how you define "sport". For some, "sport" is using high caliber rifles to disintegrate a target from over 7000 feet away. Armor piercing rounds are also not available legally to the general public. And also, anything 50 cal is not "anti-personnel"...it's made to pulverize armor. I'm not saying this to criticize your knowledge, I'm saying this because using words like "assault" rifle or "armor piercing" adds a negative connotation to a weapon. If I assault you that's on me, not the gun.

But I mostly agree with your post.

You're right most of my gun knowledge isn't that great and I'm kinda glad about that.

All I'm saying is that in America where guns are better for self-defence something like this is a bit too much to defend your home with.

Now if you're buying a firearm to shoot it down the range with or kill a deer, in my opinion a bolt-action or a semi-automatic riffle(like the M1 garand or M14) that doesn't hold too many rounds would do the job.

Air guns chambered for self-contained gas cartridges. (Existing owners prior to 20 January 2004 were allowed ownership subject to obtaining a firearm certificate)

Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing. This would generally include stun guns, or electric shock devices,CS gas(tear gas),OC spray(pepper spray), etc.. Cattle prods would not generally be included, but it would depend on the type.

Firearms which previously fell into a prohibited category, but have been converted to an otherwise permitted form. For example, a pistol which is adapted by permanently fitting a 60-centimetre (24 in) long smooth-bore barrel to it does not thereby become permitted.

Ammunition

Explosive, incendiary, noxious (biological, chemical) and armour piercing ammunition types are "prohibited"for civilians, although this ban created a problem for the authorities as expanding ammunition is needed for hunting and vermin control. Expanding ammunition is not only permitted but a legal requirement for deer stalking. Holders of a FAC for the purpose of (game) shooting or deer-stalking are required to have authorisation to acquire and possess expanding ammunitionnoted on it. The amount of ammunition allowed for purchase and possession is determined by conditions stated on an FAC.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You're right most of my gun knowledge isn't that great and I'm kinda glad about that.

All I'm saying is that in America where guns are better for self-defence something like this is a bit too much to defend your home with.

Now if you're buying a firearm to shoot it down the range with or kill a deer, in my opinion a bolt-action or a semi-automatic riffle(like the M1 garand or M14) that doesn't hold too many rounds would do the job.

I do agree that for home defense, that may be a bit much, and again, I agree that an M1 garand or M14 would suffice for hunting. However, in America, it's not about what's sufficient for killing a deer or defending your home. Our (I don't care about excessively decorated guns, I'm just grouping America as a whole...namely conservatives and the whole South) gun sport is all about who has the biggest, baddest looking gun with the most modifications to make for the most amazing "gun range" experience. Our sport is at a gun range. When we go hunting, most hunters I know are going with a .22 or something even more simple like a compound bow. When you see modded AR-15's that's for showing off to your friends to overcompensate phallic presence, or lack thereof. But do keep in mind that there are heavy heavy restrictions on what is allowed to be modded onto a gun here. Most of the things you see on a gun are for comfort and looks as well as accuracy...not firepower and rate of fire.

I do agree that for home defense, that may be a bit much, and again, I agree that an M1 garand or M14 would suffice for hunting. However, in America, it's not about what's sufficient for killing a deer or defending your home. Our (I don't care about excessively decorated guns, I'm just grouping America as a whole...namely conservatives and the whole South) gun sport is all about who has the biggest, baddest looking gun with the most modifications to make for the most amazing "gun range" experience. Our sport is at a gun range. When we go hunting, most hunters I know are going with a .22 or something even more simple like a compound bow. When you see modded AR-15's that's for showing off to your friends to overcompensate phallic presence, or lack thereof. But do keep in mind that there are heavy heavy restrictions on what is allowed to be modded onto a gun here. Most of the things you see on a gun are for comfort and looks as well as accuracy...not firepower and rate of fire.

I get the who has the biggest. But people need to get over their small penis anxiety.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Most gun related crimes happen in gun-free zones. Schools, churches, random businesses that are anti-gun, etc. I'm not saying I want everyone and their mother having a gun, but gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals can always gain access to a gun, so why not level the playing field?

Although I think background checks should be more rigorous, and maybe even people should limited to gun purchases per year (I think this is a fair compromise between pro and anti-gun folks), the amount of guns already in the US means that they'll never be taken away completely. The ONLY way to get all of the guns out of the US would be to violate constitutional rights and search every household without warrant while under Marshal Law...and that would cause an uprising in and of itself. So like...guns are here to stay, I'd rather be able to defend myself if needed.

There shouldn't be a need to compromise between pro/anti second amendment folks, at least not in the way you're proposing it. The second amendment is there, keep it that way. What you're suggesting is basically a planned economy, which (no matter how minor it may seem) screws with the free market principles. Exactly how I'm not certain (there's a number of ways that shit could go wrong)

If you really want a compromise, it's not rocket science. What most pro-gun folks want, is a firearm to do non-criminal activities or to defend themselves in case of emergency. What most anti-gun folks want is less people getting shot. Both have good intentions and should be able to respect each other for that. The most logical compromise, would be taking away the right to bear arms for those convicted of violent crime and/or deemed too mental.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm more towards anti-gun control than Pro Gun control, but I see it as that there are some guns nobody has a need for (unless you are SWAT or in the military); but if a gun serves a need; personal/family protection, or hunting, or for shooting sports: why should citizens not have the right to have them?

And you can't say it saves lives to not have guns because it's not the weapon that kills, it's the person.

Take guns away from honest citizens and criminals still get guns and then the honest citizens are at their mercy and things don't get better, they get worse, why do you think gun violence is really low in pro gun states?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The most logical compromise, would be taking away the right to bear arms for those convicted of violent crime and/or deemed too mental.

This part causes issues in itself. Obviously I'm not trying to be nit-picky with you and say "what is deemed too mental? That's too broad" because I know what you meant (I think). You're implying those guys who are either severely suicidal or homicidal by nature right? They haven't necessarily performed a heinous act of violence but their mind is contorted with the urges. If that's the case, then the only way to find out about these people is through a rigorous psyche evaluation, which can be lied to very easily.

Now, if you're talking about the mentally handicapped (I'm not being condescending when I say I honestly don't think you were talking about them, but I'll address it just in case) then boundaries of "freedom" are being pushed to a limit because their rights are being infringed upon.

The whole thing is this stupidly sensitive scale that will probably never be 100% balanced.

Over here if you've been admitted to hospital against your will through the mental health act throughout your life then it's really hard to own a firearm unless your consultant psychiatrist approves it. They can make a pretty honest evaluation with consideration of your past and current presentation. They have to be cautious of course but if you've been stable for X amounts of years and your illness during crisis wasn't fixated much upon harming yourself directly or others all the time then you should be fine.

Honestly, if you're severely depressed to the point of that you're suicidal, you wouldn't have the energy and motivation to go through the very extensive UK process of owning a firearm. Also if you do, your consultant psychiatrist will say no on the first notice of any depressive symptoms. With severe clinical depression it's hard for someone to hide it. If the depression is not severe, suicidal feelings are not common and also if you're depressed why would you go the extensive process, again. Depression destroys motivation.

Also if the person is suicidal or homicidal because of a personality disorder, there's no way a doctor would ever okay them to own a firearm, if they do, they'll likely face prison time because there is no plans for stability or remission for them with that type of illness in the near future prognosis wise. If the person is naturally suicidal or homicidal because of a disfunctional personality there's no way that they'd be stable and trustworthy enough to own a firearm.

I feel like over here we're quite good at judging who's 'too mental' to own a firearm because if we didn't let anyone with any type of mental illness own a firearm then people with mental illnesses that aren't that dramatic(suicide/murder tendencies) would be effected. Why someone with anxiety or someone with ass burgers 🍔 shouldn't go hunting or shoot a gun down the range if they do so please.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gun control will never work because that just leaves guns in the hands of the criminals (I know, it's a worn out argument but fuck you). That's not to say there shouldn't be regulations in place to keep them out of the hands of tards and morons, there should be a psych evaluation with every license issued.

I am planning on getting my gun license and getting a handgun and a shotgun. This is purely for home defence because Americans be fucking crazy and ain't nobody gonna be busting into my house and doing whatnot to my missus and kid, unless they want their nutsacks peppered with buckshot.

No tards though, they ruin it for everyone with their tendies to shoot up schools.